Test suite - syntax tests

LeeF: Ran the syntax tests --
failures were either from unknown functions or Unicode escape
problems (\u)
... eyeballed problem tests and were convinced that problems
were with implementation and not tests

Jeen: Similar for Sesame parser
-- failing tests seemed to be OK tests but implementation
problems
... one issue I ran into was with the resolution relative
URIs

<scribe> Scribe: LeeF

Jeen: our parser does
not have a functionality for dealing with queries from an
embedded entity so it does not handle base URIs set from
outside the query

rq25 status

<SimonR> EricP: Has noted
various things during an editor's pass over rq25

<ericP> WHERE { _:who
foaf:mboxMD5 "A2BA23432B434443D45DF655A6C6E6E";

<ericP> foaf:nick ?nick

<ericP> OPTIONAL { _:who
foaf:mbox ?mbox } }

ericP: I think that this query is
confusing with _:who acting as a different blank node in two
different BGPs

AndyS: We need this for extension
- for instance, sending BGP components off to a DL reasoner
treating it as an existential
... If it were a named variable, you'd be obliged to come back
with a binding for it

patH: I think that's an
implementation issue -- if we specify that the blank node is
the same, they'll need to keep track

<SimonR> I think a better way
to think of _:who is as a "blank variable" -- the only
difference between it and a "named" variable is that we're
obliged to project it away. (Not sure what the impact on
cardinality is, off the top of my head.)

LeeF: Where do people lean on
bnode scope?

<patH> me too

SimonR: look like blank nodes,
but act like variables (this is what we worked through in
November)

jeen: +1 Simon. Would like to
check how our implementation handles it.

Orri: My initial reaction is that
wherever something is referred to by a name it should be the
same thing, but not familiar with counter arguments

AndyS: We can make it easier;
need to respect that blank nodes are different than query
variables - would suggest that it's illegal to use the same
bnode label across graph patterns

<SimonR> AndyS: Suggests
making it illegal to reuse bnode labels between BGPs.

<SimonR> PatH: Thinks the
bnode ID scope ought to be the "document" boundary. In fact,
thinks that scope should be across BGPs.

patH: i think the scope of the
bnode IDs should be the "document" -- i think it violates RDF
design to have bnode id scope smaller than document boundary --
implies that bnode id scope cross BGPs

<patH> suggest distinguish
two issues: DL folk insist (correctly) that bnodes are not the
same as unnamed variables (issue 1); but the scope of bnodes
across parts of a query seems klike a different issue.

<patH> klike/like

<SimonR> LeeF: Thinks
consensus seems to be forming around treating bnode IDs as
scoped to the query. Would like Kendall's thoughts particularly
for DL input.

<SimonR> LeeF: Will
definitely put this on next week's agenda.

<SimonR> AndyS: Worried about
reopening a previous decision that BGPs were the unit of
entailment.

AndyS: Changing this would undo
the principle of the LC1 decision to make the BGP the extension
point